Lies & Pecadillos - What's Wrong With the Christine Blasey Ford Story, Part One

1) Ford stated she was not motivated by politics but only wanted to do her civic duty by telling her story. When she said defiantly “I’m nobody’s partisan political pawn,” it seemed she was bragging that doing this was solely her idea. Ford denies being paid to do this, but she seems to be getting richer by the minute. At least three GoFundMe accounts have been set up in her name with a balance of nearly $1M which Ford plans to use to cover her expenses.

Ford’s Democrat Activist Attorneys are working pro bono and are apparently paying for her airfare, hotel, and other expenses, raising the question of exactly what expenses were to be covered with her GoFundMe fortune. Ford’s attorneys work for the George Soros-funded “Project On Government Oversight (POGO).” GoFundMe accounts are easily adapted to money laundering; a wealthy benefactor who wants to pay someone for services rendered but doesn’t want it known can make a million $1.00 donations using bogus names. Would you be surprised to learn that most of Ford’s $1M could be traced back to Soros?

2) Ford admitted that at age 15 she decided she wanted to go to a party where there would be older boys, underage drinking, and other teenage activities that commonly occurred at such parties, all without adult supervision. She knew her parents would not approve of or allow her to go to such a party, so Ford went to the party without her parent's knowledge or permission. She knew her parents would be angry with her if they found out. What motivated her to go to that particular party? What was Ford looking for in going to this particular party?

3) Ford doesn't remember even the year when the incident occurred. After considering a number of possible years, she claimed the incident occurred in the mid-1980s. However, by 1985, Ford would have been 18 years old and would have had a driver’s license. She testified that after the assault happened, she walked downstairs and out of the party house, leaving her best friend, Leland, the only girl in the house, alone with the boys Ford claimed had just attempted to rape her. She also says she can’t remember how she got to the party or how she got home, and no one has come forward to say they had given her a ride to or from the party. But if this indeed happened in 1985, she would have had her driver’s license and would likely have driven herself to and from the party, solving at least this mystery.

By 1985, Brett Kavanaugh could not have been the one that assaulted her as he had graduated from high school in 1983, was no longer involved in the high school social scene and was attending college at Yale. When Ford began working with the lawyers Feinstein had referred her to, the Democrat Operatives that worked for the Soros-funded POGO group, they explained the timeline discrepancies in her story and convinced her to rethink the year she would allege the incident was to have occurred. Thereafter, the year of the alleged incident was 1982.

The prosecutor from Arizona asked Ford in the special hearing, “How did you come to settle on 1982 after being so long uncertain as to the year of the incident?” Ford’s answer was measured and evasive, she leaned into the mic and said in her little girl voice with the last word being a turned up inflection (as if asking a question) “I can’t say the exact…date?” then she leaned back away from the mic signaling that’s all she’s going to say about that.

4) Ford doesn't remember the exact location of the party house but says it was at least 8 miles from her home. Depending on which version of the headcount you believe, there were at least four boys and two girls at the party. Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and PJ Smyth were three of the boys present. Ford said a fourth boy was present, but she can’t remember his name. The two girls present were Ford and her friend Leland Keyser. Of those at the party, it is likely that one lived in that house. Since the others named present lived elsewhere, the boy with no name must have lived in the party house. It’s possible this boy, if indeed he existed, might have been identified through yearbooks or school pictures, the party house location might have been determined and the boy interviewed if the Ford Team thought he could corroborate her story. Apparently, they did not.

5) Ford testified that she and her husband saw a marriage counselor in 2012 because of an ongoing argument during the renovation of the couple’s home. Ford insisted on and eventually got the second front door she needed as an escape route. At one of their 2012 sessions with the counselor, Ford claims she suddenly remembered the incident where she says she was sexually assaulted, a memory that had supposedly been repressed and forgotten for over 30 years. She related her story to her husband and her therapist at that time; it wasn’t until a later date that Ford would name her attacker as Kavanaugh.

Another version of her story has her telling her husband about the attack before they were married. The therapist’s notes from that session were referred to by Ford in preparing her testimony and she showed the notes to the Washington Post reporter who wrote her story for the paper. But Ford has refused to turn her therapist’s notes over to the Senate Committee, without offering an explanation. It may be that her story is not confirmed in the therapist’s notes, or that the notes may indicate Ford mentioned another boy’s name as the attacker. Another discrepancy was this: A Palo Alto City building permit was issued for the Ford home and a second front door was installed in 2008 to serve as a separate entrance for a rental apartment being constructed during the home’s renovation.

6) Ford says she’s 100% certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker. However, Ford did not name her attacker to anyone until sometime after the alleged 2012 counseling session with her husband and her therapist when she recovered her repressed memory of the events in question that are alleged to have happened some 36 years ago. It is a fact that the more time that passes after an occurrence such as this, the less chance exists of finding any evidence of the event. Likewise, it’s a fact that as the decades pass from an event the chance that memory of the event will remain intact becomes less and less likely. Repressed memories that are “recovered” are especially difficult, being at high risk of distortion and inaccuracy.

Because of these immutable facts, very few cases that come to light many years after the event, as in this case, justify consideration, can be believed or can be acted upon. None of this is news to anyone today. Still, many suppose that in light of significant emotional impact despite the absence of real evidence or corroboration, a 36-year-old incident should be given equal weight and consideration with a 3-year-old case. Just like elections, facts have consequences that can’t be ignored. The odds of a 36-year-old accusation that lacks any evidence or corroboration successfully winning a battle with the accused are virtually zero.

7) Following her escape from the assault she heard Kavanaugh and Judge loudly going downstairs, laughing and banging the walls. She stated that once the two boys were downstairs they were talking with the others, about Ford. She could not tell what they were saying. Asked if she couldn’t understand what they were saying or if she could not actually hear talking, she said she couldn’t hear them. Then how did she determine that once the two boys were downstairs the group was talking about her? She replied, “I just assumed, it was a social gathering, people would be talking.” What?

8) All of the witnesses Ford named have provided statements saying they have no knowledge or recollection of a party such as that Ford described or of any sexual assault. In contrast, many friends and associates of Judge Kavanaugh wrote the Senate Committee vouching for the excellent character and good behavior of Kavanaugh.

9) Feinstein was deceptive and violated the rules of the judiciary committee by keeping the letter secret from the chairman and other committee members for at least 60 days. She declined to question Kavanaugh about the accusations in the letter when she met with him before the confirmation hearings. Feinstein held Ford’s letter through the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings until it came time for the Senate to vote on the nominee.

Ford had written Feinstein to prevent someone who had allegedly sexually assaulted a 15-year-old Ford from being seated on the Supreme Court by exposing the 17-year-old Kavanaugh’s misdeed. While Ford had requested that Feinstein keep her name confidential, the primary purpose of the letter was to get the letter out to the public and to the Senate Committee to prevent Kavanaugh from attaining higher office. It is interesting that, in preparation for sending her letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, Ford deleted her Facebook and Twitter social media accounts so there would be no paper trail to reveal the real Dr. Ford.

10) No one in Feinstein’s office would dare do anything like releasing a confidential letter without at least tacit authorization from Feinstein. When this was leaked to the media, both the content of the letter and Ford’s name were made public. Committee members questioned as to why Feinstein failed to bring the letter to the Committee’s attention long before the formal hearings, and why it was leaked to the media. She turned very pale and became flustered, she stuttered a few times and looking down, she admitted she could not be certain it wasn’t someone in her office that leaked the letter.

Under further questioning by the Committee, Feinstein claimed she held onto the letter to protect Ford’s confidentiality; but in fact, Ford wanted the letter released to the public, and at the same time she wanted her name held confidentially. Feinstein abused Ford’s trust by not releasing the letter earlier to the Senate Committee and then by the release of Ford’s name to the media without her consent. Senator Feinstein manipulated Ford and the situation such that maximum damage (and ongoing delays) was done to the Kavanaugh confirmation process.

Feinstein’s sacrifice of Ford’s confidentiality was well worth it to the Democrats for the chaos it created. The breach of confidentiality caused a great deal of distress for Ford as there were reporters constantly hounding her, she received death threats, her family required security guards and had to leave their home and move from place to place to stay ahead of intruders. Feinstein also put Ford at risk in terms of having her come forward and testify under oath about her story. If this was a contrived and false testament, Ford could end up in prison.

11) Ford said she was never told by Feinstein or her lawyers that the Senators on the judiciary committee would come to her in California to take her statement or that all could have been done in private. Ford, her lawyer, and Feinstein apparently decided, since Ford’s name and story were already in the public domain, that her statement should also be given publicly. Ford’s handlers are also guilty of abusing this woman by not giving her the option of keeping things private. To pursue the Democrats’ desired ends of scuttling Kavanaugh’s confirmation, any means necessary, including injuring Ford and placing her at significant risk, was fully justified.

12) Ford stated the reason she did not want to come and provide a statement earlier was because of her fear of flying. However, she has taken many trips where she traveled by air to Hawaii, Tahiti, etc. She also flew to Delaware where she had been in hiding since the letter was leaked and she and her family were getting unwanted attention.

If flying was a problem, why did she not just drive from Delaware where she was staying to Washington to meet with the Committee? I’m certain Ford’s lawyers are familiar with the current Democrat playbook and that they would have advised her to “delay, delay then delay again.” She said she did not know who was paying for the airfare from California and her hotel and other expenses.

13) Even though she said she wanted to remain anonymous, she took on her pro bono lawyer team from the Soros-funded subversive organization “Project On Government Oversight (POGO).” Her legal team advised her to take a polygraph test, and it was accomplished the first week of August, less than two weeks after she sent her letter to Feinstein. The polygraph test consisted of two questions, neither of which had anything to do with Brett Kavanaugh.

For those who give credence to polygraph studies (which are not reliable enough to be used in a court of law in the U.S.), given that we don’t know which questions were asked, the most we can deduce from the information provided is that when she was asked two questions without mentioning or including Brett Kavanaugh, Ford’s responses (whatever they were, again not provided) seemed to be truthful. Since no questions included Kavanaugh, we have no hint from the Polygraph that says anything about the truthfulness of her story where it involves Kavanaugh. You can say Ford “Passed” a Polygraph test, but for all practical purposes, her Polygraph tells us nothing.

Ford testified about her experience with this Polygraph test. She said, “They wrapped this thing around me (indicating her torso) and it seemed to be squeezing me so I couldn’t breathe. It went on forever and I was crying the whole time.” But this can’t possibly describe the Polygraph test that was administered to Ford: her test was short and she was not even asked anything about Kavanaugh. Ford is totally familiar and comfortable with Polygraph tests; what she’s describing here is not her experience, but the experience of another person, one who had phobias and underwent a Polygraph test that Ford witnessed. When asked if Ford’s Polygraph test was audio or video recorded, she stumbled a little, then said, “They had a computer there, so I, I, suppose…(mumble).” More deception (see #14 below).

14) Questioning by the Arizona prosecutor explored Ford’s experience with Polygraphs. Ford was asked if she knew about Polygraph testing, counter efforts, how things worked and whether anyone had given her tips about taking a Polygraph. She was also asked whether or not Ford had ever tutored anyone else in how to take a Polygraph or ever given tips on taking one or how to counter such a test. To all these Ford coyly answered, “No, never.”

Recently, a letter arrived at the Senate Committee from a man who had been in a relationship with Ford during the 1990s. He explained that he had witnessed Ford go over a Polygraph test in detail, including tips and counter-measures with a close friend who would be taking one in order to work at a government job. Contrary to her testimony, she apparently knows a lot about and is very familiar with Polygraph testing. Why should Ford lie about her knowledge and experience with Polygraphs?


Unlike the weak and vulnerable victim character Ford portrayed for the Senate Committee and the public, Ford is, in fact, a strong, accomplished and learned person with a wide range of talents and abilities who is currently playing the role of a sexual assault victim in order to sink President Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice for the Democrats. When Ford declares, “I’m nobody’s political pawn,” I believe her.

What is crystal clear is this: Ford is undoubtedly a long-time Democrat Activist and True Believer who was pressured by multiple Democrat Party Operatives into falsely claiming that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her. Ford’s confidentiality was sacrificed and her trust was betrayed by her fellow conspirators. She was also placed at significant risk of being prosecuted for her false testimony and her family has been threatened and intimidated because of the exposure.